T^T 

Awericd  Can'-t  Quit 


3X\97S 

9.TIZ.4- 


j-xiavs 

,9,TI24 


SEP  2<)  ISin 


America  Cant  Quit 


By 


WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 


Ex-President  of  the  United  States 


An  Address  on  the  League  of  Nations  Delivered 
at  the  Joint  Meeting  of  the  Minnesota  and 
Wiseonsin  State  Bar  Association, 

La  Crosse,  Wise.,  July  2,  1919 


Published  By 

League  to  Enforce  Peace 

Bush  Terminal  Sales  Building 

130  West  42d  Street 
New  York 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2017  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/americacantquitOOtaft 


AMERICA  CAN’T  QUIT 


by 

WILLIAM  HOWARD  TAFT 

There  is  a great  deal  of  mlsconceptioii  a§  to  what  brought  about 
this  League  of  Nations.  It  has  been  said  to  be  a fad  of  Mr.  Wilson’s ; 
it  has  been  said  that  he  surrendered  things  in  the  treaty  in  order  to 
carry  out  his'  fad.  That  is  great  error.  Mr.  Wilson  has  not  always 
been  in  favor  of  the  League;  neither  has  Mr.  Lloyd  George;  neither 
has  M.  Clemenceau. 

The  truth  is  that  this  League  was  incorporated  in  the  treaty  be- 
cause the  plain  people  of  Great  Britain  and  of  France  and  of  Italy 
demanded  a league  of  nations  as  machinery  by  which  this  might  be 
made,  as  nearly  as  possible,  the  last  war.  That  feeling  grew  as  the 
morale  weakened  in  those  countries,  and  the  morale  was  stiffened  by 
those  among  the  plain  people  who  urged  that  the  introduction  of  a 
League  of  Nations  would  make  war  in  the  future  improbable,  and  that 
they  ought  to  make  the  effort  to  win  the  war  because  by  so  doing, 
and  through  a league  of  nations,  they  could  accomplish  a purpose 
justifying  the  enormous  sacrifices  that  the  continuance  of  the  war 
would  involve.  This  is  why  the  first  resolution  passed  by  the  confer- 
ence was  that  “Not  only  must  there  be  a league  of  nations,  but  it  must 
be  the  first  thing  considered,  it  must  be  an  indispensable  part  of  the 
treaty.”  All  this  came  because  of  the  knowledge  of  M.  Clemenceau, 
Signor  Orlando  and  Mr.  Lloyd  George  that  the  plain  people  of  those 
countries  demanded  such  machinery.  If  it  is  adopted  it  will  furnish 
one  more  instance  of  the  common  sense  of  the  plain  people  that  justi- 
fies a step  forward  which  statesmen  and  Halting  philosophers  are  afraid 
to  undertake. 

Women,  Working  People,  Churches 

The  women  in  the  country  are  in  favor  of  the  League.  The  work- 
ing  men  are  in  favor  of  the  League.  The  churches  are  in  favor  of  the 
League.  Why?  Because  they  fully  understand  its  provisions?  No, 
but  because  they  believe  that  it  is  a sincere  effort  to  unite  the  forces 


3 


of  all  the  nations  of  the  world  to  prevent  war  as  far  as  possible,  and 
they  are  willing  to  undertake  the  experiment. 

The  League  is  a part  of  a treaty.  Its  constitutional  validity,  so  far 
as  we  are  especially  concerned,  depends  on  the  question,  What  is  the 
scope  of  the  treaty-making  power? 

Now  whether  the  League  be  constitutional,  or  not,  depends  upon 
the  construction  that  should  be  put  upon  it.  The  objectors  to  the 
League,  many  of  them,  say  that  it  creates  a super-sovereignty,  an  over- 
government, a managing  directorate  to  which  are  delegated  powers 
that  can  only  be  exercised  under  our  constitution  by  Congress.  There 
might  be  such  a league ; there  might  be  a league  such  as  France  desired 
to  have  in  which  there  should  be  a managing  directorate  with  a chief  of 
police,  so  to  speak,  under  that  directorate,  with  a million  men  in  the 
police  force,  so  that  Chief  of  Police  Foch,  hearing  of  a disturbance  in  one 
part  of  the  globe,  could  send  word  by  cable  to  his  superintendent  there, 
“Take  twenty  thousand  men,  go  over  and  suppress  that  disturbance,  and 
put  out  the  fire.” 

France  was  anxious  to  have  it,  because  France  wanted  an  arrange- 
ment by  which  Foch  could  order  to  the  German  frontier  at  once,  on 
any  threat  of  German  attack  upon  France,  half  a million  men,  and  her 
delegates  argued  strenuously  before  the  Conference  in  favor  of  such  an 
arrangement. 

But  the  other  nations  declined,  and  our  representatives  declined, 
because  they  said,  “Not  only  do  we  object  on  the  ground  of  expedi- 
ency to  parting  with  sovereignty  such  as  that  would  be,  but  Ave  have 
not  the  power  under  our  constitution.” 


A Partnership  Agreement 

The  league  which  I have  described  is  not  the  League  that  is  now  pre- 
sented for  our  consideration  and  adoption.  What  is  it?  It  is  only  a 
partnership  agreement.  It  is  an  agreement  in  which  the  partners  agree 
to  cooperate.  It  is  written  in  the  covenant  what  they  shall  do  under 
the  obligations  so  described.  The  circumstances  under  which  those 
obligations  arose  are  stated  in  the  covenant;  and  it  is  for  each  member 
of  the  League  necessarily  to  construe  its  own  obligation,  to  determine 
how  that  obligation  shall  be  performed,  and  then  to  perform  it. 
itself,  and  not  through  any  agency  except  its  constitutional  and  normal 
agency  to  do  the  thing  which  it  has  agreed  to  do.  I think  if 
you  will  study  the  League,  you  will  find  that  that  is  the  condition.  It 


4 


is  said  that  the  council  is  the  managing  body,  that  it  is  the  super-sov- 
ereign. There  is  no  function  to  be  performed  by  the  council  that  is 
not  advisory.  The  expression  “to  deal  with”  occurs  once  or  twice,  but 
you  will  find  that  expression  refers  rather  to  the  scope  of  the  subject  mat- 
ter to  be  considered  in  the  meeting,  of  which  all  members  must  take  notice 
so  as  to  be  there,  and  that  the  description  of  the  functions  of  the  coun- 
cil itself  is  contained  in  the  words  “recommend,”  “advise,”  and 
“propose.” 

Upon  those  words  and  the  construction  of  those  words  must  depend 
what  the  function  of  the  council  is.  Those  who  object  on  the  ground 
that  that  is  super-sovereignty  maintain  that  “recommend”  means 
“command,”  that  “advise”  means  “direct”  and  that  “propose”  means 
to  “order.”  I submit  on  the  face  of  it  that  that  is  a strained  construc- 
tion of  the  words,  and  that  nothing  but  a most  unusual  context  in 
each  case  would  justify  such  a misinterpretation  of  the  words  accord- 
ing to  their  ordinary  meaning.  And  when  you  consider  that  this 
League  is  a league  not  under  a supreme  court  which  has  the  power 
over  every  member  to  compel  it  to  render  its  affirmative  duty,  but  that 
this  must  depend  on  the  spirit  of  cooperation,  and  that  each  nation 
must  determine  for  itself  its  meaning,  its  construction  by  us  will  cer- 
tainly be  reasonable. 

Why,  these  gentlemen  discuss  this  as  if  they  were  going  before  a 
hostile  supreme  court  and  they  seek  for  strained  constructions  to  im- 
pose them  on  the  United  States.  No  secretary  of  state  would  accept 
for  a minute  the  view,  when  it  would  be  presented  to  him,  that  the 
word  “recommend”  means  “command,”  when  a council  would  recom- 
mend a course  of  action.  He  would  reject  such  a view  without  the 
slightest  hesitation. 

“Recommend”  means  a suggestion  to  be  accepted  or  rejected. 
“Advice”  means  something  to  be  accepted  or  rejected.  And  when  you 
take  away  that  foundation,  the  whole  structure  of  the  argument  as  to 
super-sovereignty  fails  and  fails  utterly. 

The  council  consist  of  nine  members,  selected,  five  of  them  by  the 
great  powers:  Great  Britain,  France,  Italy,  Japan  and  the  United  States; 
and  four  of  them  by  countries  to  be  selected  by  the  assembly.  The  as- 
sembly is  a convention  of  the  League,  with  delegates,  one,  two  or 
three,  from  each  country;  but  whether  one,  two  or  three,  with  only 
one  vote.  The  assembly  has  three  functions ; one  is  to  elect  non-mem- 
bers by  a two-thirds  vote  to  membership ; the  second  is  to  act  in  place 
of  the  council  in  conciliation,  and  recommending  a settlement  or  com- 


5 


promise ; the  third  is  to  advise  the  nations  whether  their  treaties  are  in 
accord  with  the  obligations  of  the  League,  or  not.  Those  are  the  three 
principal  functions  of  the  assembly. 

Fantastic  Objections 

Now,  I wish  to  call  your  attention  to  that  organization  in  order  to 
take  up  some  of  the  more  fantastic  objections  to  the  League,  the  char- 
acter of  which  is  such  as  to  indicate  a poverty  of  objection.  I do  not 
mean  to  say  there  are  not  sincere  arguments  against  the  league — sin- 
cerely made — but  I do  mean  to  say  that  the  character  of  a number  of 
objections  is  such  as  to  indicate  an  absence  of  material. 

For  instance,  the  first  is  that  we  could  be  called  in  to  help  Great 
Britain  suppress  an  Irish  rebellion.  Why?  Under  Article  X it  is 
provided  that  all  members  shall  preserve  against  external  aggression 
the  territorial  integrity  and  existing  political  independence  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  League.  That  means  aggression  by  foreign  countries. 
Therefore,  the  suppression  of  a rebellion  does  not  come  within  Article 
X,  nor  within  any  other  article  of  the  League.  If  a country  has  a revo- 
lution, it  can  attend  to  it,  itself.  If  the  party  which  institutes  the  revo- 
lution succeeds,  it  will  be  recognized,  as  other  nations  who  were  cre- 
ated thus  (who  have  succeeded)  have  been  recognized  by  other  coun- 
tries, and  then  they  will  be  admitted  into  the  League.  That  objection 
is  made  not  out  of  careful  and  kind  consideration  for  the  Irish,  but 
with  a view  to  arousing  their  votes  against  the  League. 

Such  a motive  leads  to  the  perversion  of  much  logic. 

The  second  objection  is  one  that  was  discovered  and  shown  by 
somebody  “from  Missouri”  that  there  are  more  brown,  black  and  yel- 
low people  in  the  world  than  there  are  whites ; and  that,  as  this  is  a 
convention  of  all  the  nations,  a league  of  all  nations,  there  will  be  more 
variegated  colored  constituents  than  there  are  whites ; and  that  in  some 
way  or  another,  which  he  does  not  explain,  we  are  going  to  have  Negro 
domination;  that  the  Negroes  of  South  Africa  will  unite  with  the 
Negroes  of  Panama,  and  then  the  Yellows,  the  four  hundred  million  of 
China,  and  the  three  hundred  million  of  India,  will  all  unite,  and  then 
we  are  going  to  be  made  brown,  black  or  yellow,  or  come  under  that 
domination.  It  is  not  explained  how.  It  is  not  suggested  how  that 
conspiracy  is  to  be  formed,  or,  when  formed,  how  it  is  to  work  out 
under  the  provisions  of  the  League. 

I have  told  you  what  the  assembly  can  do.  It  can  elect  new  mem- 


6 


bers.  It  can  recommend  a settlement,  and  it  can  advise  as  to  the  in- 
consistency between  treaties  and  the  obligations  of  the  League.  Now, 
how,  under  that  machinery,  are  those  colored  gentlemen  going  to 
obtain  the  tyranny  that  the  gentlemen  from  Missouri  has  shown? 
What  is  the  object  of  such  a speech?  It  is  to  stir  up  the  Southern 
constituencies  ^yho  are  sensitive  on  the  subject  of  Negro  domination, 
and  have  them  write  their  senators  who  have  indicated  a purpose  to 
support  the  League,  so  they  may  be  induced  to  vote  against  it. 

“A  Catholic  Conspiracy”! 

Then  the  third  objection  is  the  dreadful  disclosure  that  the  League 
is  a Catholic  conspiracy  for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  Pope  temporal 
power  over  us  all.  This  diligent  gentleman  in  hunting  objections  has 
counted  the  nations  and  found  that  there  are  more  Catholic  nations 
than  Protestant,  and  they  were  going  to  give  the  Pope  world  power. 
Just  how  it  is  to  be  worked  out,  he  does  not  explain. — The  Pope  is 
not  - a member  of  the  League,  cannot  be  elected  a member  of  the 
League.  And  even  if  he  could  be  it  is  a little  difficult  to  see  how  he 
could  gain  any  temporal  power  thereby.  The  recommendations  of 
settlement  of  disputes  under  the  League  have  to  be  made  by  the 
unanimous  judgment  of  the  council,  and,  if  you  appeal  to  the  assembly, 
both  by  the  unanimous  judgment  of  the  countries  whose  representa- 
tives constitute  the  council,  and  a majority  of  the  other  members  of  the 
League.  Suppose  the  Pope  were  in  a dispute  seeking  temporal  power. 
Consider  the  Council  on  this  issue.  There  is  the  United  States.  How 
much  danger  is  there  that  the  United  States  will  insist  on  the  temporal 
power  of  the  Pope? 

Then  take  France.  France  has  been  at  odds  with  the  Church  for 
twenty-five  years,  and  does  not  admit  the  Church  in  any  way  into  its 
government. 

Then  take  England.  England’s  king  loses  his  throne  if  he  becomes 
Roman  Catholic. 

Then  take  Japan.  She  is  Shintoist  and  Buddhist.  She  is  very 
likely  to  vote  for  the  temporal  power  of  the  Pope ! 

And  Italy.  Italy  has  been  for  half  a century — ever  since  it  was  a 
united  nation — keeping  the  Pope  out  of  temporal  power. 

There  you  have  the  unanimous  vote  of  the  Council  against  such 
moonshine — for  that  is  all  it  amounts  to. 


7 


Treaty-Making  Power 

What  is  the  treaty-making  power?  It  seems  to  me  that  there  is 
a great  misconception  of  its  scope.  There  are  many  who  argue  that 
the  treaty-making  power  may  not  extend  to  promises  of  what  Congress 
is  to  do.  That  is  the  argument.  Now,  the  treaty-making  power  is 
not  a performing  power.  It  is  a promising  power.  When  the  govern- 
ment promises  to  another  nation  by  contract,  it  is  the  treaty-making 
power  that  acts  for  the  government  and  is  the  government.  The  prom- 
ises to  be  performed  are  generally  promises  that  can  be  performed  only 
by  Congress.  Now,  is  it  possible  that  the  treaty-making  power  may 
not  make  a contract  for  the  government  to  do  a thing  which  it  is  for 
Congress  to  do  under  the  Constitution?  If  that  be  true,  then  we  can- 
not make  treaties  at  all.  There  is  no  use  having  the  treaty-making 
power,  if  that  is  true.  Then  the  United  States  cannot  promise,  as  it 
has  promised  time  after  time,  to  pay  money,  because  Congress  has  to 
appropriate  it  when  the  payment  is  due. 

That  question  was  raised  with  respect  to  the  Jay  Treaty.  After 
the  Jay  Treaty  had  been  made.  Congress  demanded  the  letters  be- 
tween Washington  and  Jay  as  to  the  Treaty  in  order  that  it  might 
investigate  the  Jay  Treaty.  Washington  said  No,  the  treaty-making 
power  has  bound  you  to  make  certain  payments ; that  is  your  obliga- 
tion ; you  are  not  part  of  the  treaty-making  power ; therefore,  you  are 
not  entitled  to  go  to  the  foundations  of  that  treaty.  And  Congress 
passed  a resolution,  called  the  “Blunt  Resolution,”  in  which  it  “reso- 
luted”  that  it  was  entitled  to  consider  the  Treaty — but  she  paid  the 
money  without  getting  the  letters. 

Now,  I appeal  to  you,  because  this  is  a fundamental  distinction,  that 
the  .treaty-making  power  is  the  promising  power  so  far  as  other  nations 
are  concerned.  Congress  may  join  that  promise,  but  it  does  not  add 
any  constitutional  validity  or  strength  to  the  promise  because  one  con- 
gress cannot  bind  another  congress  to  a policy  unless  it  has  the  promis- 
ing power.  Under  the  Constitution,  the  President  and  the  Senate, — 
two-thirds — have  the  promising  power.  Now  that  means  the  promis- 
ing power  for  this  government,  and  that  means  that  when  this  govern- 
ment is  bound  by  that  promise,  then  it  must  be  performed  by  Congress. 

Ah  but,  you  say,  that  limits  the  constitutional  discretion  of  Con- 
gress. It  does  in  this  sense,  that  Congress  is  under  a moral  and  legal 
obligation  to  do  the  thing  that  honor  and  legal  obligation  require,  but 
Congress  represents  the  government  and  has  the  sovereignty  of  the 


8 


government  placed  in  it,  and  one  of  the  evidences  of  that  sovereignty 
is  the  power  to  do  the  wrong  thing,  is  the  power  to  dishonor  its  obliga- 
tion legally  made.  That  choice  of  right  or  wrong  is  what  constitutes 
freedom  and  sovereignty,  but  it  does  not  render  invalid  the  original 
obligation  entered  into  las  the  constitution  directs,  by  the  power  given 
in  the  Constitution  to  promise  and  contract  for  the  government  with 
foreign  nations. 


No  Power  to  Compel  Congress 

Therefore,  what  we  do  here  is  to  enter  into  this  covenant  and  prom- 
ise and  contract  that  under  certain  conditions,  we  will  do  certain 
things ; and  Congress  is  in  honor  and  legally  bound  to  do  them  but 
there  is  no  power  to  compel  Congress  to  do  anything ; it  may  do  what 
It  chooses,  and  it  may  dishonor  that  obligation,  but  that  does  not 
render  the  original  promise  or  treaty  that  we  propose  to  make  invalid, 
any  more  than  when  a man  lets  his  note  go  to  protest,  he  can  plead 
that  the  note  was  invalid  because  he  could  let  it  go  to  protest.  And 
when  you  get  that  fundamental  conception,  then  you  see  how  errone- 
ous is  the  view  that  a treaty  like  this  is  invalid  because  honor  and  law 
— international  law  limits  the  power  of  Congress  to  do  what  it  may  do, 
although  it  cannot  be  prevented  from  doing  as  it  chooses  within  its  con- 
stitutional discretion.  Unless  you  follow  that  course  of  reasoning, 
there  was  no  need  of  making  a treaty-making  power,  because  the 
treaty-making  power  could  not  contract  for  anything,  as  Congress  is 
with  few  exceptions  the  only  performing  power  under  the  Constitu- 
tion. 

Reduction  ot  Armaments 

What  is  the  object  of  this  League  and  what  does  it  propose  to  do? 
The  object  is  to  avoid  war  as  far  as  possible.  It  is  to  make  peace  as 
permanent  as  it  can  be  made.  How  does  it  do  it?  Why,  it  does  it  by 
four  great  steps.  The  first  is  Article  VIII.  Article  VIII  is  the  arma- 
ment article.  It  declares  it  to  be  in  the  interest  of  peace  that  there 
should  be  a reduction  of  all  the  armaments  of  the  world  as  far  as  pos- 
sible, consistent  with  national  safety  and  the  obligations  of  the  League. 
It  directs  the  Council  to  prepare  a plan  for  that  reduction  and  the 
Council  is  to  take  a military  commission  to  assist  it.  The  Council 
then  takes  up  the  matter  of  receiving  information  which  the  nations 
covenant  to  give  as  to  all  existing  armaments.  Then  the  council  makes 
the  plan,  reduces  the  armament  and  fixes  the  limit  for  each  country. 


9 


That  plan,  when  completed,  is  submitted  to  all  the  governments. 
Each  government  studies  it  with  a view  to  its  own  limitations,  and  its 
own  limitations  with  respect  to  the  limitations  of  other  countries.  It 
argues  out  the  question,  and  negotiates,  and  finally  a voluntary  agree- 
ment is  reached.  When  that  voluntary  agreement  is  reached  with  a 
limitation  for  each  nation  proportionate  to  its  needs,  then  the  countries 
covenant  to  keep  within  that  limit  for  not  more  than  ten  years,  there 
being  a revision  before  the  end  of  ten  years.  Now,  if  during  that  time 
any  contingency  requires  the  increase  of  the  limit  of  any  nation,  the 
Council  has  authority  to  increase  it.  That  is  a means  of  meeting 
emergencies.  On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a check  against  dispropor- 
tionate increase,  for  that  Council  acts  unanimously;  and  as  we  have 
a member  on  that  Council,  no  limit  can  be  increased  except  by  our 
consent. 

What  is  the  objection  to  this?  It  is  said  that  this  will  paralyze 
our  arm  of  defense,  subject  our  homes  and  firesides  and  free  institu- 
tions to  destruction,  and  lay  us  naked  to  our  enemies.  That  is  elo- 
quent, but  there  is  not  a scintilla  of  fact  to  sustain  it,  not  a scintiha. 

We  agree  to  limit  our  armament  in  consideration  of  every  other 
country  limiting  its  armament.  Is  not  that  fair?  Instead  of  meeting 
the  danger  there  may  be  from  other  nations  by  increasing  our  arma- 
ment, we  meet  it  by  keeping  down  the  armament  of  the  others  under 
agreement.  If  two  men  meet  and  you  take  away  both  revolvers  and 
they  go  at  each  other  with  fists  and  punch  eyes  and  noses  and  solar 
plexuses — isn’t  that  fair?  And  it  has  the  advantage  of  there  being  no 
mortality. 

That  is  what  this  plan  is.  It  is  a reduction  of  the  armament,  so 
that  the  armament  shall  be  defensive  and  not  offensive,  so  it  shall  con- 
tain no  temptation  to  war.  Therefore,  while  we  may  be  said  to  lay 
ourselves  naked  to  our  enemies,  they  lay  themselves  naked  to  us.  In 
other  words,  the  convention  is  only  an  ordinary  agreement  as  to  style 
or  latitude  in  dress — war  dress.  That  is  all  it  is.  But  this  is  most  im- 
portant. This  whole  war  in  its  character  of  human  disaster  has  come 
from  race  for  armament.  It  began  away  back  with  Bismarck  in  the 
development  of  Prussia  into  the  German  Empire,  when  he  said  he 
would  do  it  by  blood  and  iron.  He  fought  the  Danish  war  and  in- 
c<^eased  his  army.  He  fought  the  Austrian  war  and  strengthened  his 
army.  He  fought  the  Erench  war  and  then  he  united  the  German 
states  into  one  government  under  the  Empire. 


10 


One  Cause  of  the  War 


The  Kaiser  had  the  dream  of  universal  dominion,  and  to  assist  him 
in  that  he  took  this  wonderful  military  establishment  and  enlarged  it 
and  that  enlargement  went  on  from  year  to  year,  conscription  of  two 
years  for  all  the  ;^outh  of  the  Empire,  with  a reserve  of  these  trained 
soldiers  after  that  service  by  for  six  or  seven  years  in  addition.  Stra- 
tegic railways,  great  manufacture  of  ammunition,  artillery,  small  arms, 
explosives,  everything  that  science  could  suggest,  or  experience  dictate 
with  reference  to  making  that  military  establishment  the  strongest  in 
the  world.  The  Germans  stimulated  action  in  their  allies,  Austria  and 
Italy;  conscription  went  on  in  both  those'  countries.  France  and 
Russia  were  aroused  for  fear  of  aggression,  and  so  they  went  on  year 
after  year  and  decade  after  decade  until  in  1914  these  armaments  had 
reached  an  enormous  figure,  far  beyond  anything  ever  contemplated. 

That  brought  about  the  war.  Its  evil  effects  were  four-fold.  It 
loaded  the  poor  people  of  Europe  with  overwhelming  taxation.  It 
took  out  of  the  life  of  all  the  youth  two  or  three  years  of  their  produc- 
ing capacity.  It  gave  a truculence,  a chip-on-the-  shoulder  disposition 
and  temptation  to  war,  a bullying  tendency  to  the  Kaiser,  who  felt  the 
strength  of  this  military  establishment  so  that  when  he  went  into  con- 
ference with  other  nations  and  came  out  winner,  he  told  his  people  that 
he  won  by  standing  forth  in  shining  armour,  by  rattling  his  sword  in 
its  scabbard.  And  when  1914  came,  he  had  won  in  the  race.  Russia 
had  not  completed  her  strategic  railways,  France  had  not  completed 
her  plan  of  artillery  or  conscription.  And  he  said,  “Now  is  the  time  to 
strike.  Our  enemies  are  in  condition  where  we  can  strike  them  and 
win.”  And  when  the  Serbian  difficulty  came  on  he  told  the  Emperor, 
Francis  Joseph,  “I  will  go  north  on  a vacation,  apparently,  and  then 
you  put  in  the  ultimatum  and  when  I hear  of  it  I will  be  surprised  and 
I will  hurry  back,”  and  he  did.  “But,”  he  said,  “No  conference  with 
other  nations.”  And  there  was  none.  And  war  was  on. 

Savagery  of  War 

It  brought  on  the  war,  this  race  for  armament.  And  the  worst  fea- 
ture of  that  enormous  armament  was  the  character  of  the  campaign 
that  it  brought  about.  Never  in  history  have  we  had,  since  the  days 
of  Attila,  the  Hun,  such  savagery;  instruments  of  destruction  were 
directed  not  against  armies  only,  but  against  old  men,  against  women 
and  against  children.  Explosives,  dropped  from  the  clouds,  made  no  dis- 
crimination between  combatants  and  non-combatants.  Explosives 


11 


from  the  bottom  of  the  sea  destroyed  innocent  people  on  the  sea  who 
had  a right  to  be  there,  men,  women  and  children — non-combatants. 
All  grew  out  of  the  great  enormous  armament.  And  then  the  devas- 
tation of  the  countries — for  it  was  a devastation  of  peoples  and  of  coun- 
tries. The  northern  part  of  France,  its  great  manufacturing  centers, 
were  absolutely  destroyed  and  the  mines  have  been  so  injured  that  it 
will  take  fifteen  years’  compensation  by  the  use  of  other  mines  to 
enable  France  to  pull  herself  together  again.  Machinery  was  stolen 
from  Belgium  in  order  to  interfere  with  her  industrial  future,  so  that 
when  these  nations  were  conquered,  not  only  would  their  armies  be 
conquered  but  their  commercial  supremacy  would  be  injured  and  their 
power  of  competition  would  be  forever  destroyed.  The  destruction 
of  trees  and  houses  in  the  country  has  no  parallel.  That  is  all  due  to 
the  enormous  scope  of  the  armament  and  the  opportunity  for  destruc- 
tion that  that  armament  gave. 

Is  there  a man  or  woman  with  soul  so  dead  to  the  welfare  of  man- 
kind, of  his  own  people  and  of  the  nations  of  the  world,  that  does  not 
long  for  some  means  of  preventing  a recurrence  of  that  awful  race  for 
armament  which  is  the  inevitable  alternative  unless  we  adopt  some 
means  of  stopping  it? 

You  can’t  help  it.  Among  the  Allies,  if  you  have  no  League,  if 
there  is  no  obligation  of  this  kind,  each  nation  will  naturally,  and  ought 
to,  turn  to  the  question  of  its  preservation  by  insurance  of  its  safety — 
and  that  means  armament.  And  when  each  nation  arms,  each  other 
nation  watches  it,  because  that  nation  may  be  its  enemy  in  the  future. 
It  can  take  no  chances.  Therefore  the  race  begins  at  once — innocently, 
but  in  the  end  it  goes  on  from  year  to  year.  This  race  that  we  have 
had  went  on  for  four  decades  and  the  dreary  round  of  cause  and  effect 
will  go  on,  it  will  go  on  more  quickly  than  before,  because  if  we  are 
to  have  no  League  the  nations  will  begin  at  once  and  then  we  will  see 
the  race  has  begun  with  its  inevitable  consequences. 

The  Example  of  Germany 

This  has  long  been  seen.  Why,  even  the  poor  Emperor  of  Russia 
saw  what  the  result  was  likely  to  be.  A number  of  years  ago — he 
called  the  Hague  Conference  for  the  purpose  of  arranging  machinery 
to  prevent  future  wars,  and  the  first  heading  that  he  made  was  “The 
limit  of  armament.”  Why  wasn’t  it  put  through?  Because  Germany 
strode  into  that  conference  with  mailed  fist  and  said,  “If  you  discuss 
the  limit  of  armament,  I withdraw  from  the  Conference.”  Now  these 
gentlemen  who  object  to  this  Article  VIII  would  have  us  play  the  part 


12 


in  this  Conference  that  Germany  played  in  that.  Do  you  like  the  ex- 
ample? Do  you  like  the  leadership?  Isn’t  it  absurd  for  us  to  object  to 
limitation  of  armament  under  these  conditions  when  the  nations  on  the 
other  side  are  willing  to  have  a limit  of  armament?  They  are  near 
the  possible  center  of  disturbance,  yet  they  are  willing  sincerely  and 
honestly  to  enter  into  such  an  arrangement;  we  have  the  Atlantic 
ocean  between  us  and  them,  and  yet  we  are  not  going  to  “lay  ourselves 
naked  to  our  enemies”  by  any  such  limit.  And  it  is  a bit  humorous  for 
us  to  get  excited  about  this.  We  have  lived  as  a nation  for  one  hun- 
dred twenty-five  years,  and  never  in  the  history  of  that  nation,  except 
in  time  of  war  have  we  had  adequate  armament  even  to  do  the  police 
duty  of  the  nation.  Between  the  Civil  war  and  the  Spanish  war  we  had 
our  regular  army,  for  one  hundred  million  people,  between  the  Atlantic 
and  Pacific  oceans,  a domain  reaching  from  Canada  to  the  Gulf,  an 
army  limited  to  twenty-five  thousand  men — less  than  a single  division 
that  we  sent  over  to  this  war.  Do  you  think  that  was  “laying  our- 
selves naked  to  our  enemies?”  Then  it  was  increased  to  one  hundred 
thousand — that  is,  it  was  given  to  the  President  to  increase  the  number 
of  the  army  within  one  hundred  thousand,  but  we  never  could  get  it 
to  one  hundred  thousand  because  Congress  would  not  appropriate  the 
money  for  the  purpose.  I have  been  President  of  the  United  States, 
and  I have  been  Secretary  of  War,  and  I know  what  I am  talking 
about.  I think  we  have  been  inadequate  in  our  armaments. 

But  how  does  it  work?  Why,  you  get  a Congress  that  has  some 
vision,  and  it  tries  to  make  some  preparation,  and  it  votes  some  appro- 
priation that  increases  taxation,  and  the  members  who  voted  go  home 
and  find  perspiring  patriots  who  are  willing  to  take  the  place  of  those 
gentlemen  who  voted  for  that  preparation,  by  agreeing  not  to  vote  for 
future  appropriations.  And  very  often  the  gentlemen  who  voted  for 
the  appropriation  are  left  at  home  to  contemplate  the  grandeur  of  their 
action. 

Therefore,  what  I venture  to  say  is  that  when  this  limit  is  fixed  in 
a League  of  Nations — and  it  will  be  liberal  because  the  nations  on  the 
other  side  are  not  afraid  of  us,  they  are  quite  willing  to  have  us  have 
enough  to  comply  with  the  obligations  of  the  League — and  although 
I am  neither  a prophet  nor  the  son  of  a prophet,  I venture  to  say  that 
when  that  limit  is  fixed,  except  in  time  of  war  Congress  won’t  come 
within  gunshot  of  the  limit. 


13 


Constitutionality 


Then  it  is  said  to  be  unconstitutional.  Why?  I don’t  know.  One 
of  the  embarrassments  in  court  when  you  say  a thing  is  unconstitu- 
tional is  that  you  have  to  point  out  the  verse  and  line  of  the  Constitu- 
tion that  is  violated;  but  you  don’t  have  to  do  that  either  on  the  stump 
or  in  the  Senate. 

Now  is  it  within  the  treaty-making  power  to  limit  armament? 
Well,  what  is  the  scope  of  the  treaty-making  power?  The  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States  is  fairly  good  authority  on  that  subject,  and 
it  has  held  that  the  treaty-making  power  is  one  of  very  wide  scope.  It 
may  even  suspend  state  statutes  and  thus  transcend  stations  between 
congressional  action  and  that  of  state  legislatures.  It  may  cover,  as 
Mr.  Justice  Field  said  in  Geoffroy  vs.  Riggs,  it  may  cover  the  usual  sub- 
ject matter  of  treaties  between  nations  except  that  it  may  not  change 
the  form  of  government,  it  may  not  agree  to  do  things  forbidden  by 
the  Constitution  and  it  may  not  cede  land  belonging  to  a state  without 
the  consent  of  the  state. 

The  limitation  of  arniament  is  one  of  the  most  frequent  subject 
matters  of  peace  treaties.  Indeed,  this  very  peace  treaty,  that  does  not 
seem  to  be  objected  to  by  the  objectors  in  the  Senate,  contains  a very 
lengthy  chapter  on  the  limitation  of  the  armament  of  Germany,  show- 
ing that  it  is  a frequent  subject  matter  of  peace  treaties.  Therefore, 
according  to  the  definition  of  the  Supreme  Court,  the  limitation  of  our 
armament  comes  directly  within  the  treaty-making  power.  More  than 
that,  in  1817,  we  made  a treaty  with  Great  Britain  in  which  we  agreed 
not  to  put  naval  armament  on  the  Great  Lakes  if  Great  Britain  agreed 
not  to  do  so,  and  she  did.  I see  the  same  gentleman  objects  to  that  as 
a treaty  because  he  says  it  did  not  amount  to  much.  Well,  it  was  an 
agreement  with  another  nation  signed  by  the  executive  and  confirmed 
by  two  thirds  of  the  Senate  and  my  recollection  is  that  that  makes  a 
treaty.  That  provided,  as  I say,  a limitation  of  armament,  and  it  pro- 
vided that  we  might  withdraw  from  it  on  notice,  but  that  doesn’t  pre- 
vent it  being  a treaty,  and  if  you  can  make  a treaty  for  two  years,  you 
can  make  it  for  ten.  As  a matter  of  fact,  we  have  kept  that  treaty  for 
one  hundred  years  or  more;  we  were  glad  when  we  made  it  and  we 
have  been  glad  ever  since.  We  celebrated  the  centenary  of  peace  in 
1914  and  the  oratorical  periods — I remember,  I made  some  of  them 
myself — referred  to  the  wonderful  fact  that  under  an  agreement  made 
at  that  time  we  had  allowed  that  border  of  four  thousand  miles,  and 
especially  the  Great  Lakes,  to  be  utterly  undefended ; and  we  pointed  to 


14 


that  as  an  illustration  of  what  might  happen  between  reasonable  na- 
tions to  avoid  war.  We  were  proud  of  it. 

Now  these  objectors  to  the  treaty,  digging  around  underground, 
have  made  the  awful  disclosure  that  we  were  unconstitutional  when 
we  adopted  that  treaty  and  we  have  been  unconstitutional  during  the 
century  of  its  existence  in  maintaining  it.  Now,  my  understanding  is 
that  precedent  in  construing  the  Constitution  should  have  great  influ- 
ence. Here  we  have  a precedent  of  one  hundred  and  two  years  estab- 
lishing the  right  of  the  treaty-making  power  to  include  the  limitation 
of  armament  in  the  treaties  it  makes  with  other  countries.  I ask  you 
how  serious  that  objection  is  to  the  limitation  of  armament  for  consti- 
tutional reasons. 


Article  X 

So  much  for  the  first  step  forward  towards  peace  in  the  treaty.  The 
second  is  in  Article  X.  What  is  Article  X?  By  that,  the  members  of  the 
League  undertake  to  respect  and  preserve  against  external  aggression  the 
territorial  integrity  and  the  existing  political  independence  of  all  the  mem- 
bers of  the  League.  What  is  it  in  effect?  It  is  a union  that  forces  the 
world  to  maintain  inviolate  the  international  commandment,  “Thou  shalt 
not  steal.”  That  is  all  it  is.  It  is  the  embodiment  of  the  declaration  with 
which  we  went  into  this  war,  that  the  war  was  to  make  the  world  safe  for 
democracy ; it  was  to  destroy  the  militarism  of  Germany  and  to  produce  a 
condition  in  which  democracies  might  pursue  the  happiness  of  their  people 
without  exhausting  their  energies  in  making  preparations  to  resist  robber 
nations  who  would  carry  out  the  principle  that  Might  makes  Right.  I 
know  this  is  denied,  but  that  was  the  purpose  of  the  war  and  that  is  the 
basis  on  which  we  went  into  it.  At  least  that  was  the  whole  tone  of.  every 
argument  and  address  in  every  patriotic  meeting  that  I attended  or  ever 
heard  of.  That  is  what  carried  the  soldiers  to  the  other  side.  That  is 
what  spurred  them  up  to  their  grand  record  on  the  other  side  and  this 
Article  X is  nothing  but  the  embodiment  of  that  principle  and  it  is  a refu- 
tation of  the  principle  of  conquest  on  the  part  of  Germany. 

Senator  Beveridge  thinks  we  ought  not  to  give  up  the  power  of  con- 
quest because  we  have  improved  the  world  so  much  by  conquest  hereto- 
fore. We  took  Mexican  territory  and  substituted  Americans  for  Mexi- 
cans and  that  improved  the  world.  Well,  I do  not  say  that  war  has  not 
advanced  civilization  incidentally  and  in  a way.  It  has.  But  I am  going 
to  say  that  we  have  reached  a stage  in  the  history  of  the  world  when  we 


15 


have  got  to  stop  advancing  civilization  that  way  or  there  will  be  no  world. 
The  next  general  war  will  be  more  destructive  than  this,  as  much  more 
than  this  as  this  was  more  so  than  the  last  war.  The  developments  that 
were  made  on  the  improvement  of  machines  for  destroying  men  and  blow- 
ing them  up  were  not  given  full  scope  in  the  last  year  of  this  war.  If  it 
had  continued,  the  destruction  would  have  been  frightful  and  the  next 
war,  if  it  comes  on,  will  be  in  the  nature  of  a world  suicide.  Now  do  I 
have  to  argue  against  the  proposition  that  it  is  not  worth  while  to  kill  one- 
half  of  the  world  in  order  that  the  other  half  may  get  on?  Isn’t  there 
some  other  means  of  advancing  the  civilization  of  God?  If  Mr.  Bever- 
idge’s view  of  it  is  correct,  we  ought  to  sit  down  and  write  a note  to  Ger- 
many and  say,  Take  back  your  Kaiser  and  go  on  with  your  war.  Because 
Germany’s  plea  was  exactly  that  of  Senator  Beveridge.  They  said  they 
were  improving  the  world.  They  said  they  invented  kultur ; they  had  a 
patent  on  it  but  they  were  willing  to  license  it  to  God  in  his  work  of  ad- 
vancing civilization  on  condition  that  it  should  be  done  through  the  ma- 
chinery of  the  German  army.  That  is  all.  If  you  shut  your  eyes  and  con- 
sider William  Beveridge’s  proposition,  you  will  see  a label  on  it,  “Made  in 
Germany.”  So  I will  pass  on  from  that.  If  you  think  with  Senator  Bev- 
eridge, I cannot  argue  with  you  and  you  can’t  argue  with  me.  We  will 
just  part  peaceably. 


Will  Not  Breed  Wars 

The  next  argument  against  Article  X is  a formidable  one.  It  is  one 
that  is  used  by  most  of  the  objectors  to  the  League  in  order  to  appeal  to 
the  women  of  the  country.  They  realize  that  the  women  are  more  sensi- 
tive to  war  than  men.  They  realize  that  the  memories  of  women  are  longer 
than  men’s,  that  men  are  thicker  skinned.  Women  do  not  forget  the  mid- 
night vigil ; they  do  not  forget  lying  awake  worrying  and  anxious  over 
their  dear  ones  exposed  in  war, — they  are  no  jingoists.  They  are  in  favor 
of  peace,  and  they  are  sincerely  in  favor  of  the  League  as  a means  of  try- 
ing whether  we  cannot  maintain  peace  and  avoid  war.  So  these  objectors 
to  the  League  seek  to  reach  them  with  the  argument  that  this  League  and 
Article  X will  involve  us  in  more  war  than  if  we  didn’t  have  them  at  all. 
Now,  is  that  so?  It  is  said  that  we  are  going  into  constant  wars,  little 
wars  all  over  the  world,  remote, — and  that  our  boys  are  to  be  summoned 
and  sent  to  remote  quarters  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  wars  between 
countries  in  whom  we  have  no  legitimate  interest. 

In  the  first  place,  that  is  not  the  way  it  will  work  even  if  we  have 


16 


those  wars.  The  Council  is  to  prepare  a plan  and  advise  the  means  of 
preparing  obligations  under  Article  X.  While  the  Council  can  not  com- 
pel the  nation  to  comply  with  their  plans,  the  report  of  the  Council  will  be 
a reasonable  limitation  upon  the  obligations  of  the  nations  which  they  may 
themselves  honorably  and  sincerely  adopt.  We  have  a member  on  that 
Council;  therefore,  we  can  be  sure  of  a reasonable  plan  and  that  reason- 
able plan  must  necessarily  involve  a reasonable  distribution  of  the  burdens 
of  the  obligations  of  Article  X.  It  would  be  reasonable,  therefore,  to  limit 
the  activities  under  Article  X for  any  small  war  of  this  kind  between  one 
nation  and  another, — (a  bullying  nation  picking  on  a small  nation  in  Asia) 
to  the  Asiatic  government,  or  those  who  have  the  convenient  forces  there, 
if  military  force  is  needed.  And  so,  too,  with  the  European  countries,  the 
policing  of  that  country,  if  necessary,  would  primarily  fall  under  such 
reasonable  plan,  upon  the  European  nations.  And  so  with  us  in  the  West- 
ern Hemisphere.  The  policing  of  this  Western  Hemisphere  would  natur- 
ally fall  to  us.  It  would  be  in  accordance  with  the  view  of  those  who  are 
most  sensitive  to  the  subject  of  the  extent  of  the  Monroe  Doctrine. 

Now  this  suggestion  is  directed  to  the  argument  that  we  will  have  a 
constant  series  of  small  wars.  If  we  have  a general  war,  I don’t  need  to 
make  the  argument  because  if  we  have  a general  war,  or  large  enough  so 
that  if  the  conflagration  spreads,  it  must  be  a general  war,  then  we  want 
to  get  into  that  war  “with  both  feet”  as  quickly  as  possible ; because  as  we 
look  back  upon  this  war — and  without  criticising  anyone,  we  realize  that  it 
would  have  been  a great  deal  better  if  we  had  gone  in  originally  and  that 
the  war  would  have  been  ended  much  more  promptly. 

Withering  Effect  of  Boycott 

But,  secondly,  if  the  League  operates  as  it  should  operate,  there  will 
not  be  these  small  wars  which  are  suggested  as  a reason  why  we  are  going 
constantly  to  need  an  army  and  be  constantly  engaged  in  war.  Why  not  ? 
In  the  first  place,  when  any  such  war  is  begun,  under  Article  XVI  all  the 
nations  of  the  world  are  under  immediate  obligation  to  levy  a universal 
boycott  against  the  outlaw  nation.  They  put  a Chinese  wall  around  that 
country.  They  shut  off  all  food  supplies, — all  supplies  of  raw  material ; 
they  refuse  a market  to  any  product  of  the  country  that  is  beginning  the 
war  and  must  have  the  means  of  continuing  it.  We  cut  off  all  business 
relations  of  every  sort ; we  do  not  pay  any  debts  that  we  owe  them ; we 
cut  off  the  cables  and  the  postal  facilities  and  we  sever  diplomatic  rela- 
tions. We  subject  them  to  a withering  isolation — such  an  isolation  as  no 


17 


country  except  the  United  States  and  one  or  two  South  American  coun- 
tries can  possibly  stand  without  starving.  I beg  you  to  consider  that,  the 
wonderful  penalizing  operation,  the  beautiful  penalizing  operation  of  such 
an  organization  as  the  universal  boycott.  What  nation  will  like  to  come 
up  against  that  kind  of  boycott?  How  much  of  a war  will  it  be  able  to 
carry  on  when  no  neighbor  can  furnish  anything  in  the  way  of  food  and 
raw  material,  when  it  cannot  get  money  for  anything  that  it  produces. 
That  in  itself  and  the  prospect  of  it  will  prevent  the  nation  from  going  to 
war.  And  then  if  the  boycott  does  not  work  effectively,  then  the  forces  of 
the  neighboring  nations  will  be  called  in  to  assist  that  operation  and  sup- 
press and  inflict  a penalty  of  military  destruction  upon  that  nation. 

I say,  no  nation — of  course  I mean  after  the  stabilization  of  the  con- 
dition of  Europe  today — that  is  so  fluid  and  chaotic  that  there  will  have  to 
be  attention  to  that  before  we  can  say  that  the  normal  situation  is  restored. 
But  I mean  when  peace  is  restored,  the  operation  of  the  League  is  going  to 
prevent  the  occurrence  of  any  such  war.  You  say  that  is  only  reasoning. 
But  the  reasoning  is  thoroughly  good,  and  it  is  based  on  human  nature. 
It  is  the  minatory,  threatening,  cautionary  effect  of  the  penalties  of  the 
League  that  are  expected  to  work  to  prevent  war.  That  is  the  normal 
operation  of  the  League.  That  is  the  reason  why  we  go  into  it,  not  to  fight 
wars,  but  to  have  the  nations  understand  that  if  they  fight  wars,  then  we 
do.  We  fight  not  for  lawless  violence  or  greed  of  possession,  but  we  fight 
with  lawful  force  to  overcome  lawless  violence  on  the  same  principle  that 
we  use  the  police  force  in  domestic  communities. 

Monroe  Doctrine 

Now  you  say,  that  is  a priori.  It  is.  But  if  you  go  back  in  your  own 
history  you  have  an  illustration  that  ought  to  a fortiori  demonstrate  this.’ 
In  1823  the  Holy  Alliance,  consisting  of  the  great  powers  of  Europe  ex- 
cept Great  Britain,  indicated  a purpose  to  come  over  here  and  overthrow 
the  nations  which  had  revolted  from  Spain,  and  which  we  had  recognized. 
Canning  of  England  was  greatly  troubled  about  it.  Thomas  Jefferson 
was  consulted  and  he  advised  uniting  with  England  to  prevent  it.  John  C. 
Calhoun  did  so.  But  Monroe  and  Adams  conceived  the  declaration  of  the' 
Monroe  Doctrine  and  put  it  into  the  message  of  Monroe  of  that  year.  The, 
doctrine  was  merely  the  application  of  the  principle  of  Article  X to  the 
aggression  of  European  nations  against  the  territorial  integrity  and  politi- 
cal independence  of  American  nations.  It  announced  that  if  any  of  those 
nations  came  over  here  to  take  the  territory  or  overthrow  the  independence 


18 


of  an  American  nation,  they  would  have  to  fight  not  only  that  American 
nation,  but  the  United  States  as  well.  Now  the  Senate  was  opposed  to  it 
and  Congress  was  opposed  to  it  and  Thomas  H.  Benton  made  the  speech 
of  his  life  against  it.  The  bitterness  was  greater  then  than  it  is  today 
against  the  League,  and  the  argument  was  that  it  would  involve  us  in  so 
many  ways  that  it  would  destroy  the  country.  Nevertheless,  the  doctrine 
was  issued  and  what  has  been  the  result?  That  is  nihety-six  years  ago, 
and  that  doctrine  has  been  maintained  inviolate  ever  since,  without-  our 
engaging  in  war  on  account  of  it  and  without  firing  a shot  or  losing  a man. 
Just  because  we  threatened. 

There  was  one  instance  of  a violation  that  was  an  exception  but  it  is 
the  exception  that  proves  the  rule.  During  the  Civil  War  when  our  hands 
were  tied  so  that  we  could  not  act  and  could  not  maintain  the  threat,  then 
Napoleon  III,  that  fakir  Emperor  of  France,  sent  troops  over  here  to 
Mexico  and  set  up  the  Empire  of  Maximilian.  He  did  it  for  three  years 
against  our  protest,  but  we  had  no  means  of  resisting.  Then  Appomatox 
came  and  we  sent  Sheridan  w’ith  thirty  or  forty  thousand  troops  to  the 
Mexican  border,  and  the  interest  of  Napoleon  in  Mexico  ended  and  he 
withdrew  his  troops,  and  the  empire  of  Maximilian  passed  and  he  was 
tried  and  shot,  and  the  independence  of  Mexico  was  restored.  That  shows 
the  Monroe  Doctrine  has  been  maintained  by  the  threat  of  the  United 
States  with  the  power  to  back  up  that  threat.  The  minute  that  the  power 
was  taken  away,  the  minute  it  was  seen  that  the  United  States  could  not 
act,  then  the  greedy  nations  of  Europe  came  over  here — and  they  had  been 
greedy  all  the  time  for  colonization  in  other  countries  than  in  America.  If 
that  be  the  result  of  a threat  of  one  nation  which  has  not  the  power  of  im- 
posing the  universal  boycott,  what  must  necessarily  be  the  result  of  the 
union  of  all  nations  within  the  League,  beginning  with  the  universal  boy- 
cott, with  its  withering  isolation  and  destructive  character?  I say,  no 
nation  will  court  such  disaster.  The  League  becomes  effective  by  its  min- 
atory character  and  its  overwhelming  power.  These  features  of  the 
League  will  take  away  the  necessity  for  the  actual  exercise  of  force. 

That  is  the  second  great  step. 

We  Can  “Agree”  to  Make  War 

I don’t  know  whether  I ought  to  stop  to  argue  the  question  whether 
we  can  agree  to  make  war  or  not.  It  is  said  we  cannot  agree  to  make  war 
because  congress  has  to  make  war.  Of  course  congress  has  to  declare,  to 
make,  war,  but  we  can  agree  in  advance  that  under  certain  conditions  we 
will  make  war.  We  have  done  it.  We  guaranteed  the  integrity  of  Pan- 


19 


ama.  Isn’t  that  Article  X?  Was  that  unconstitutional?  That  was  in 
1902.  Has  anybody  been  heard  to  say  that  was  unconstitutional?  We 
guaranteed  the  integrity  of  Cuba;  we  guaranteed  the  integrity  of  other 
nations  long  before  Panama  in  connection  with  the  Canal.  Isn’t  sauce  for 
the  goose,  sauce  for  the  gander?  Why  should  it  be  necessary  to  lug  in 
these  imponderable  constitutional  arguments  when  precedent  shows  that 
they  have  no  weight  at  all  ? So  I am  not  going  to  waste  time  in  pausing 
to  make  a further  answer. 

Then  the  third  step  forward  is  that  which  provides  for  the  settlement 
of  differences  peaceably.  That  provides,  if  two  nations  have  a difference, 
they  shall  arbitrate  and  the  nations  covenant  to  abide  the  arbitration.  Then 
there  is  a specification  in  the  words  of  Mr.  Root  as  to  what  steps  are  arbi- 
trable: The  violation  of  treaties,  international  law,  questions  of  interna- 
tional law,  and  facts  needed  to  establish  rights  under  treaties  or  interna- 
tional law.  There  is  a provision  for  the  organization  of  a court  and  the 
provision  that  an  arbitration  of  the  council  may  call  for  the  advice  of  the 
court  when  organized  and  that  the  court  may  be  used  by  voluntary  sub- 
mission as  a tribunal  for  decision.  For  the  decision  of  cases  between 
states  there  is  no  obligatory  provision  as  to  arbitration,  but  if  nations 
should  disagree  about  arbitration  then  the  question  goes  as  of  course  for 
mediation  by  the  council  and  if  the  council  is  not  satisfactory,  either  party 
may  ask  that  the  assembly  mediate.  The  duty  of  mediation  consists  first 
in  trying  to  get  the  parties  to  agree,  hearing  the  case  just  as  a court  would 
hear  it,  and  ultimately  if  they  cannot  get  the  partie.s  to  agree,  making  a rec- 
ommendation of  settlement, — and  if  the  recommendation  of  settlement  is 
unanimous  then  it  is  the  basis  for  a settlement  in  this  form : The  nations 
covenant  not  to  make  war  until  three  months  after  the  award  or  until 
three  months  after  the  recommendation  of  settlement  and  not  then  if  the 
nation  against  whom  the  award  has  been  made  or  the  settlement  recom- 
mended complies  with  the  award  or  the  settlement.  In  other  words  it  is 
eminently  drawn  for  the  purpose  of  restraining  the  aggressive  nation  and 
limiting  it  to  the  remedies  allowed  by  the  recommendation  of  settlement 
of  the  nation  against  whom  that  recommendation  is  made  complies  with 
the  settlement  or  the  award. 

If  there  is  no  compliance  with  that  unanimous  settlement,  then  the 
nations  are  to  do  nothing.  There  is  nothing  said  as  to  the  performance  of 
that  recommendation — I mean  the  compulsory  performance  of  it,  but  the 
nation  seeking  it  is  allowed  to  pursue  such  remedies  as  it  may  see  fit.  In 
other  words  it  can  go  on  with  the  war,  fight  with  that  nation  against  whom 
it  has  a judgment,  so  to  speak,  and  use  that  means  of  compelling  it.  But 


20 


the  other  nations  are  under  no  obligation  to  act  and  there  is  no  mention  of 
their  doing  anything.  There  was  such  a suggestion  in  the  first  covenant 
but  that  has  been  now  omitted. 

Let’s  Get  What  We  Can 

That  is  not  a complete  and  perfect  plan  for  the  settlement  of  differ- 
ences. I could  have  drawn  a better  plan,  I think ; doubtless  all  who  hear 
me  could  have  drawn  a better  plan ; but  I was  not  invited  to  and  neither 
was  anybody  else.  This  was  a result  of  the  conference  of  fourteen  dif- 
ferent representatives.  It  does  grate  me  somewhat  and  I submit  I have  a 
right  to  object,  from  a personal  standpoint,  to  find  gentlemen  who  opposed 
the  universal  arbitration  treaties — and  who  opposed  the  League  of  Nations 
recommended  by  our  League  to  Enforce  Peace  in  which  there  was  a spe- 
cific plan  for  the  hearing  of  justiciable  cases  and  machinery  for  determin- 
ation of  justiciable  cases  and  bringing  the  nations  in  to  abide  judgment  in 
such  cases — to  have  these  gentlemen  that  defeated  those  particular  things 
or  opposed  them,  now  criticise  this  League  because  it  does  not  contain 
those  things  that  they  opposed.  I am  in  favor  of  getting  what  we  can.  I 
believe  as  we  go  on,  if  we  get  our  foot  inside  the  door,  we  shall  open  it  up, 
and  with  the  power  of  amendment  of  the  League,  we  can  so  amend  the 
League,  as  the  Constitution  was  amended,  that  we  can  perfect  its  opera- 
tion if  we  all  go  in  sincerely  to  make  it  work.  If  we  do  not  find  sincere 
cooperation,  then  we  can  get  out  of  the  League  on  two  years’  notice ; but 
here  is  the  great  opportunity  to  get  a boon  for  mankind  and  to  help  this 
nation  and  the  world, — and  now  are  we  to  stand  on  mere  technical  objec- 
tions, filed  with  all  the  meticulousness  of  a lawyer  with  a desperate  case 
before  the  Supreme  Court.  That  is  not  the  spirit  with  which  we  should 
approach  a great  issue  like  this,  affecting  human  kind. 

A Chance  for  Public  Opinion 

Even  if  this  is  not  war  proof,  as  we  admit  that  it  is  not,  it  provides 
a locus  penitentiae  for  the  parties  in  the  hearing  of  the  case  when  they  all 
covenant  to  restrain  war  for  three  months  after  judgment.  It  provides 
for  the  operation  of  the  public  opinion  of  the  world  through  the  agencies 
of  the  League  in  knocking  the  heads  of  the  parties  together  to  see  if  they 
cannot  come  to  some  voluntary  agreement.  It  enables  the  people  of  each 
nation  to  understand  the  attitude  of  the  other  quarreling  nation  and  with 
the  suggestion  by  recommendation  as  to  what  the  right  or  wrong  of  the 
issue  is,  most  threatened  wars  will  be  settled.  That  some  wars  will  follow 


21 


I shall  not  propose  to  deny ; I am  not  here  as  a vendor  of  quack  medicines, 
with  sure-cures ; I do  not  think  that  appeals  to  the  confidence  of  people ; 
certainly  not  to  lawyers.  I feel  in  that  respect,  if  I may  use  a somewhat 
undignified  illustration,  as  in  the  case  of  the  announcements  of  the  hair 
elixir  in  which  I have  considerable  interest  these  days,  which  terminates — 
after  describing  the  glossy,  curly  result  that  will  come  from  its  applica- 
tion— “but  it  must  be  noted  that  we  do  not  guarantee  to  cure  a shiny,  bald 
head.” 

Proponents  of  this  League  do  not  guarantee  the  abolition  of  war,  but 
they  say  it  will  work  in  most  cases  and  that  if  it  does,  the  enormous  value 
of  the  result  justifies  the  sharing  of  the  burdens  with  other  nations  of  the 
obligations  needed  to  bring  it  about. 

Open  Diplomacy 

The  fourth  great  step  forward  is  open  diplomacy.  Heretofore  many 
important  treaties  have  been  secret,  especially  those  of  offensive  and  de- 
fensive character  promising  war.  Now  they  are  all  to  be  open.  Now  they 
are  to  betspread  in  the  secretariat  of  the  League,  just  as  the  deeds  of  titles 
to  land  in  the  community  are  filed  in  the  Recorder’s  office.  So  when  you 
go  to  deal  with  a nation,  you  can  go  to  the  secretariat  of  the  League  and 
find  all  the  obligations  that  are  binding  against  that  nation.  In  the  past, 
these  secret  treaties  have  led  to  difficulties  and  often  to  war.  The  Triple 
Alliance  was  a secret  treaty;  the  Entente  between  France  and  Russia  was 
a secret  treaty ; this  London  Pact  over  which  they  are  having  such  a fuss 
in  respect  to  Fiume  and  the  Dalmatian  coast  was  a secret  treaty.  Now  all 
that  is  to  be  abolished.  Every  one  is  to  be  “in  on  the  ground  floor.” 
Straightforwardness  is  to  be  introduced  into  diplomacy.  We  are  to  play 
the  game  of  diplomacy  with  the  cards  face  up  on  the  table. 

That  makes  the  four  great  steps.  Now,  my  friends,  here  they  are: 

First: — The  reduction  of  armament  to  such  a point  that  everything 
will  be  defensive  instead  of  offensive. 

Second : — The  guaranty  against  stealing  and  territorial  independence, 
backed  up  by  the  pressure,  economic  and  military,  of  the  world. 

Third : — The  settling  of  differences  peaceably.  The  reconciliation 
of  parties  and  their  mediation  and  the  explanation  of  their  issues,  to  draw 
down  the  public  opinion  of  the  world. 

Fourth  : — Then,  open  diplomacy. 

With  these  four  great  steps,  we  have  every  reason  to  hope  that  war 
will  be  pushed  into  remoteness.  United^ — they  make  the  greatest  step  for- 


22 


ward  ever  taken  by  the  world  in  the  interest  of  mankind  to  avoid  the 
scourge  of  war. 

Covenant  and  Treaty  Inseparable 

It  is  said  that  we  c'jght  to  make  the  treaty  of  peace  and  then  separate 
the  League  and  consider  that  at  our  leisure.  I don’t  know  whether  you  have 
followed — I have  no  doubt  you  have — the  arguments  against  the  League. 
If  you  have  and  have  seen  the  manifestation  of  any  sense  of  responsibility 
of  those  who  have  objected  to  the  League  for  the  execution  and  carrying 
out  of  the  treaty  of  peace,  you  have  seen  more  than  I have.  I have  not 
seen  a single  argument  based  on  the  view  that  the  peace»treaty  presented 
any  trouble  or  any  problem  at  all.  Now  let  me  suggest  some  difficulties. 

The  first  one  is  that  we  are  said  to  have  overthrown  Germany.  We 
have  destroyed  her  military  power,  it  is  said.  Yes,  but  we  have  not 
destroyed  Germany  and  we  have  not  destroyed  her  spirit — at  least  if  we 
can  judge  by  circumstances,  she  is  still  in  many  regards  unrepentant. 

We  have  limited  her  armament  to  two  hundred  thousand  men,  to  be 
reduced  in  a short  time  to  one  hundred  thousand ; the  destruction  of  cer- 
tain fortifications ; restriction  upon  her  manufacture  of  ammunition  and 
arms,  of  submarine  and  aeroplanes.  She  is  forbidden  to  resort  to  con- 
scription and  there  are  a number  of  other  restraining  provisions,  and  their 
effect  must  last  for  ten  or  fifteen  years. 

Do  you  think  that  if  we  went  away  and  left  our  treaty  and  trusted 
only  to  M.  Clemenceau  to  write  a note  to  President  Ebert,  inviting  his 
attention  to  the  obligations  of  Germany  under  the  treaty  and  asking  Ger- 
many politely  to  comply  with  them,  that  we  could  enforce  that  treaty? 
Do  you  think  Germany  is  in  that  condition  of  mind?  If  you  do,  you  are 
greener  than  the  fields  of  corn  that  we  like  to  look  on  now.  You  have 
got  to  enforce  that  treaty  by  power  and  power  behind  it,  the  same  power 
that  won  the  war,  or  the  treaty  won’t  be  enforced.  How  are  you  going 
to  get  the  power?  You  are  going  to  get  it  only  from  the  League  of  Na- 
tions that  dictated  that  treaty,  who  are  the  nations  that  declared  war 
against  Germany  and  many  of  them  carried  it  on.  That  is  the  only  way. 
And  when  you  have  the  foundation  of  a League  of  Nations  brought  about 
by  the  force  of  circumstances,  you  have  got  the  beginning  of  a new  insti- 
tution in  the  world. 


How  Institutions  Grow 

Leagues  do  not  grow  out  of  conventions  of  college  professors.  I have 
attended  those  conventions.  I am  a college  professor.  I know.  You  go 
and  discuss  such  a plan  and  the  discussions  are  valuable ; you  print  your 


23 


speeches  if  you  have  the  money  and  circulate  them  if  you  have  the  money 
and  your  friends  take  them  and  put  them  in  a pigeon  hole  for  future 
reference.  They  are  not  drawn  out  again  until  the  circumstances  require 
a consideration  of  that  as  a practical  solution  of  a real  situation.  That  is 
the  way  that  most  institutions  are  brought  into  the  world.  The  circum- 
stances make  it  necessary.  It  is  like  a house  beginning  with  a small 
family  that  is  increasing  and  every  time  they  need  a room,  they  put  on  an 
“L.”  It  does  not  add  to  the  architectural  beauty  of  the  house  but  it  has 
this  advantage — that  every  part  of  the  house  was  put  on  for  practical  use 
at  the  time  it  was  built.  And  this  is  the  way  the  British  constitution  was 
built.  The  Habeas  Corpus  Act  and  all  other  adjective  processes  making 
the  bill  of  rights  were  introduced  into  the  British  constitution  to  meet  an 
existing  and  pressing  abuse. 

That  is  the  way  institutions  that  are  permanent  in  the  world  are  cre- 
ated. That  is  the  reason  this  League  of  Nations  will  be  created,  by  the 
force  of  circumstances,  that  required  it.  You  cannot  get  along  without  it. 

I do  not  refer  to  a league  of  world  nations,  but  I mean  the  League  of 
Nations  that  is  engaged  in  enforcing  this  treaty.  The  first  thing  is  to 
keep  Germany  on  her  knees,  to  keep  her  in  that  graceful,  useful  posture 
until  she  brings  forth  works  meet  for  repentance.  Then  we  can  take 
her  into  the  League  and  give  her  the  same  treatment  that  other  nations 
have.  But  we  have  got  to  maintain  the  power  to  keep  that  status  until  the 
time  comes,  and  you  can  get  no  such  power  without  the  League  of  Na- 
tions. 

Read  Senator  Lodge’s  speech  made  shortly  after  the  armistice,  de- 
scribing what  the  peace  was  that  had  to  be  made.  It  is  a luminous  exposi- 
tion. You  can  leave  out  the  latter  part  where  it  argues  against  the  League 
of  Nations  because  that  was  academic.  There  was  no  covenant  at  the 
time.  But  take  up  that  exposition  and  you  will  see  how  the  treaty  shaped 
itself  reasoning  from  the  armistice  and  its  terms,  and  following  the  prin- 
ciple of  self-determination.  There  are  four  independent,  strong,  powerful 
states,  if  they  are  allowed  to  develop,  Finland  and  the  Baltic  provinces^ 
Poland  and  Ukrania  which  are  created  between  Russia  and  Germany. 
What  for?  For  strategical  purposes — to  keep  Germany  out  of  Russia. 
She  has  been  trying  to  get  in  there  for  years.  She  forced  that  treaty 
of  Brest-Litovsk  for  the  purpose  of  taking  over  Russia.  These  nations 
are  created  for  the  purpose  of  keeping  her  out. 

Then  she  had  a dream  of  a Central  Empire,  of  all  the  central  countries 
of  Europe  down  to  the  Bosphorous  and  then  across  in  Asia  Minor,  uniting 


24 


all  that  empire  with  a steel  bond  of  the  Hamburg-to-Bagdad  Railway  and 
the  Persian  Gulf.  That  is  to  be  interfered  with.  How  ? By  the  creation 
of  the  Czech-Slovak  state  and  of  ten  million  Slavs  of  Bohemia,  Moravia 
and  Slovakia,  which  is  a way  station  in  Germany,  on  that  railroad.  That, 
with  the  Jugo-Slav  state  carved  out  of  Southern  Hungary  and  Southern 
Austria  as  they  were,  and  Herzegovina,  Bosnia,  Groatia,  reaching  to  the 
Adriatic,  that  is  another  block  to  the  Gentral  Empire.  Then  comes  Tran- 
sylvania, which  contains  more  Rumanians  than  Hungarians,  it  is  taken 
from  Hungary  and  added  to  Rumania  to  make  another  block  in  the 
plan.  Then  we  come  to  Gonstantinople  to  be  under  the  League,  to  be 
administered  for  all  the  nations  of  the  world  and  to  keep  open  the 
straits  between  the  Black  Sea  and  the  ^gean  Sea. 

New  Nations  Must  Be  Stabilized 

And  that  bird,  that  lame,  sick  bird,  Turkey,  is  to  be  eliminated  from 
Europe.  Her  legs  and  wings  and  breast  are  to  be  cut  up  into  autonomies, 
the  autonomy  of  Palestine,  the  autonomy  of  Armenia,  the  autonomy  of 
Syria,  the  autonomy  of  Arabia,  and  the  autonomy  of  the  Gaucasus  and  the 
autonomy  of  Mesopotamia.  If  you  count  them  over,  you  will  find  a 
dozen  nations  independent  of  the  old  empires  created.  They  are  for  the 
strategic  purpose  of  keeping  the  Central  countries  from  again  conspiring 
against  the  world.  But  that  condition  has  to  be  stabilized.  It  is  fluid  now. 
There  is  a chaotic  condition  there  and  there  must  be  some  power  to 
stabilize  it.  Treaties  are  to  be  as  long  as  the  moral  law.  The  differences 
which  will  arise  between  them  are  myriad.  Somebody  will  have  to  settle 
those  differences.  Somebody  will  have  to  see  that  the  settlements  are 
authoritative.  Some  power  must  exist  to  back  up  those  settlements  or 
else  you  will  have  confusion  worse  confounded  and  more  war  than  ever 
before. 

Then,  over  and  above  all  is  the  spectre  of  Bolshevism  that  comes  from 
Russia,  militant  Bolshevism,  that  awful  doctrine,  that  doctrine  that  would 
overturn  everything  that  is  decent  in  society,  that  doctrine  that  Lenine  an- 
nounces is  legitimately  manifested  in  the  dictatorship,  whilst  the  Pro- 
letariat of  two  hundred  thousand  succeeds  the  dictatorship  and  lordly 
landowners  of  one  hundred  fifty  thousand  to  rule  over  one  hundred 
eighty  millions,  only  distinguished  from  the  former  dictatoiship  “because 
it  is  in  the  interest  of  the  masses,”  secured  by  force,  secured  by  the  sup- 
pression of  every  individual  right,  the  right  of  free  speech,  the  right  of 
the  free  press,  and  secured  by  compulsory  labor. 


25 


Read  John  Spargo,  the  Socialist;  the  description  by  Lenine  himself  of 
Bolshevism  and  see  what  a terrible  force  it  is.  Mass  murder  and  other 
pleasant  circumstances  are  there  as  instances  of  the  government,  and  it 
is  militant.  The  properties  they  are  plundering  they  use  to  pay  the  Red 
Guards  to  spread  unrest  and  the  force  which  is  to  overthrow  all  society, 
and  they  have  gotten  into  Hungary;  they  are  pressing  again  into  Ger- 
many ; they  have  pressed  into  Bavaria  and  they  are  pressing  into  Vienna. 
Nowhere  is  there  unrest  that  they  do  not  seek  to  take  advantage  of  it. 
There  is  soil  for  Bolshevism  in  France  and  Italy  and  Great  Britain. 

Isn’t  it  to  our  interest  to  uphold  modern  society?  We  do  not  fear 
Bolshevism  in  this  country — perhaps — unless  Europe  becomes  Bolshevist, 
unless  England  and  the  rest  of  them  become  Bolshevist  and  then  it  will 
be  a real  threat. 

Our  Free  Institutions  Misunderstood 

The  spirit  of  our  free  institutions  prevents:  Take  these  little  concen- 
trations of  loud-mouthed  anarchists  and  socialists  and  bolshevists ; they 
are  misled  as  to  the  character  of  the  American  people.  They  do  not  under- 
stand our  tolerance ; they  do  not  understand  our  traditional  desire  for 
freedom  of  speech,  so  that  it  irks  us  to  have  any  restraint  or  punishment 
for  it.  When  they  stand  on  barrel  heads  and  announce  their  theories  in 
foreign  languages  to  their  various  followings,  and  the  speeches  are  trans- 
lated, and  nothing  is  done  to  them,  they  think  everybody  acquiesces.  They 
do  not  understand  our  spirit  which  is — and  I think  it  is  a sanitary  method 
— that  the  best  way  to  get  rid  of  a bad  smell  is  to  let  it  evaporate  into 
the  air.  If  you  will  read  Kipling’s  “American  Spirit,”  you  will  see  how 
he  understands  it.  If  Bolshevism  persists  here  there  will  be  a reaction 
that  will  be  ruthless  in  its  severity  and  this  will  make  a deep  impression 
on  those  who  survive.  Nevertheless,  it  is  our  duty  to  see  that  it  does 
not  get  any  further.  Through  the  League  of  Nations  we  must  stabilize 
modern  society  and  retain  that  which  we  have  been  two  thousand  years 
fighting  to  protect,  to  stabilize  the  guaranties  of  Liberty — life,  liberty  and 
the  right  of  property.  It  is  idle  to  call  the  Lenine  government  a democ- 
racy when  he  drove  by  force  the  selected  representatives  of  Russia,  elected 
by  universal  suffrage  under  careful  registration  of  all  men  and  women 
of  Russia.  It  was  found  that  the  Bolshevists  have  a very  small  minority. 
That  was  enough  for  them  to  summon  the  Red  Guards  and  drive  the 
delegates  home  and  close  forever  the  Assembly  during  their  power. 


26 


Are  We  Quitters? 

Now,  my  friends,  don’t  we  owe  it  to  Europe,  don’t  we  owe  it  to  our- 
selves, don’t  we  owe  it  to  the  world  to  establish  a league  of  nations,  which 
will  stabilize  what  is  worth  having  in  our  civilization?  Are  we  quitters? 
Are  we  slackers  ? Are  we  going  to  fight  the  battle  in  the  field  and  leave 
the  peace  which  represents  the  fruit  of  our  effort,  which  represents  the 
justification  of  our  sacrifices,  to  go  as  meaning  nothing?  Or  are  we 
going  to  stand  up  and  with  the  tremendous  power  that  God  has  given 
us,  as  the  most  powerful  nation  of  the  world,  with  resources  beyond 
compare,  with  people  of  the  highest  average  intelligence  of  one  hundred 
million  or  more,  and  the  military  potentiality  that  we  demonstrated  on  the 
fields  of  Belgium  and  France — are  we  going  to  allow  that  great  power  to 
operate  in  no  way  in  the  settlement  of  this  great  war  in  which  we  took 
an  honorable  part?  Are  we  going  to  run  away  from  it,  saying  as  one 
statement  was  made,  “We  have  licked  the  Huns,  and  now  you  clean  up 
the  mess.”  Isn’t  that  a grand  vision  of  the  situation? 

If  you  believe  that  the  objections  to  this  League  are  real,  if  you  be- 
lieve they  are  fair,  that  the  boon  that  the  League  offers  does  not  justify 
the  endangering  of  the  nation  and  assuming  that  risk,  then  it  is  your  duty 
to  use  your  influence  against  the  ratification  of  the  League.  But  if  you 
feel  as  I do  that  this  represents  the  greatest  possible  step  forward  to  save 
civilization,  then  you  will  use  your  influence  with  your  senators  and 
notify  them  to  support  the  League.  But  what  I urge  you  to  do  is  to 
purge  your  minds  and  souls  from  unworthy  considerations  in  reference 
to  the  issue.  Take  it  upon  its  merits.  If,  because  you  do  not  like  Mr. 
Wilson,  or  don’t  like  that  administration,  or  don’t  like  the  democratic 
party — any  more  than  I do — and  think  it  may  redound  to  the  credit  of 
that  party  and  so  oppose  the  League,  then  you  are  acting  from  unworthy 
motives,  irrelevant  and  incompetent  to  any  such  issue. 

I am  a Republican  and  hope  to  live  and  die  a Republican.  No  matter 
whether  they  read  me  out  of  the  party  or  not,  I can  vote  the  Republican 
ticket. 


Meaning  of  Parties 

Now  I believe  in  parties.  A party  is  essential  in  popular  government 
to  interpret  the  will  of  the  majority.  A party  is  an  organization  in  which 
the  members  agree  on  general  principles  waiving  minor  differences.  They 
select  their  candidates  and  adopt  their  platforms  representing  those  prin- 


27 


ciples.  Then  they  invite  the  support  of  the  people,  and  if  a majority  of 
the  people  support  the  party,  it  carries  out  the  will  of  the  majority.  That 
is  the  only  way  you  can  interpret  the  will  of  the  majority  into  govern- 
mental action.  That  is  what  popular  government  is.  But  there  are  cer- 
tain issues  that  arise  above  party,  that  transcend  all  parties  and  all  party 
triumphs  that  are  merely  temporary.  Those  issues  usually  grow  out  of 
something  very  fundamental.  This  issue  is  as  fundamental  as  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence,  the  constitution  of  the  United  States  or  the  issues 
of  the  Civil  War.  And  speaking  of  the  Constitution,  I beg  of  you  to  go 
back  and  read  the  discussions  on  that  instrument,  and  see  how  much  it 
was  abused  and  what  dangers  were  anticipated  in  working  it  out.  By 
great  men,  too.  Men  who,  if  they  were  alive  today,  would  be  glad  to 
wipe  out  what  they  said  about  the  Constitution. 

With  this  issue  so  transcendent,'  an  issue  that  grows  out  of  the  inter- 
national relations,  we  may  well  say  that  when  we  step  across  the  frontier, 
when  we  go  down  beyond  low  water  mark  and  confront  the  nations  of 
the  world,  we  stand  neither  as  Democrats  nor  as  Republicans,  but  as 
Americans. 

My  friend,  suppose  you  were  a Senator,  or  suppose  you  had  a power 
to  influence  a Senator  and  you  influenced  him  against  the  League.  Sup- 
pose the  League  came  in  and  it  worked  those  benefits  that  we  believe  it 
will  work  and  twenty-five  years  later,  after  that  had  been  demonstrated, 
your  grand-son  should  come  up  to  you  and  say,  “Grand-dad,  why  did  you 
vote  against  the  League?”  Suppose  you  are  a man  who  voted  against  the 
League  because  you  hate  Mr.  Wilson — men  have  told  me  that  they  hated 
Mr.  Wilson  and  so  they  were  going  to  vote  against  the  League.  I said  to 
one  the  other  day,  “My  dear  Sir,  don’t  you  see  how  utterly  illogical  and 
absurd  you  are  ? Why,  you  are  allowing  yourself  to  be  influenced  by  a 
man  whom  you  hate,  to  oppose  something  you  would  otherwise  support. 
Just  think,  you  magnif}^  and  allow  your  personal  feelings  towards 
him  and  his  influence  upon  you  to  be  so  great  that  you  do  not  examine  the 
merits  of  a question  which  concerns  your  country  and  the  world.”  Now 
when  this  grand-son  of  yours,  twenty-five  years  from  now,  should  come 
up  to  you  (and  you  had  voted  against  the  League  because  you  hated  Wil- 
son) and  when  he  should  ask  you  in  the  light  of  the  beneficial  operation 
of  the  League,  “Grand-dad,  why  did  you  vote  against  the  League?”  What 
will  you  tell  him?  You  will  do  one  of  two  things;  you  will  either  say, 
“Run  away,  Grand-son,  you  do  not  understand  those  issues”  or  else  you 
will  lie  about  it. 


28 


PHOTOMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

PAT.  NO. 
877186 

Manufactured  by 
eAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


